I know what you are getting it, but I still want to stress that
Modularity != Plugability, although it is a helpful tool in achieving it.
The problem is that to integrate JSF fully and correctly in compliance
with the EE spec you have to use non-standard integration hooks. Even
with the RI (mojarra) those impl specific hooks have changed in a
non-compatible way between minor versions. So for a container provider
to support even multiple versions of one implementation, you have to
implement integration code for each one.
JPA did a good start with having an SPI (although it could be better,
let the container do the bytecode analysis vs the provider). I am all
for adding plugability SPIs, but the minimal profile is a no-go for me.
Really all a minmal profile is, is just the serlet spec, and vendors can
still release standalone servlet containers if they want. Calling the
servlet spec a "Java EE Profile" wouldn't really change anything, other
than maybe confuse people.
On 6/29/12 4:46 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
> Antonio,
>
> Interesting idea. How big is the difference between what you propose and
> the Web Profile, e.g. the TomEE server meets?
>
> EE 7 could offer a limited set of Modularity, but when the decision was
> made to drop Modularity from the Java 7 Platform due to the
> complications and challenges, the OpenJDK team is facing up until this
> day, I was among the first to point out the negative impact this would
> have on EE to then Spec Lead Roberto, and others, particularly EC
> Members present.
> Further Modularity or additional profiles may only work if the
> foundation really became modular. We hope and trust that's going to be
> EE8 or any EE that can use Java (8) Modularity.
>
> Werner
>
> Am 29.06.2012 23:35 schrieb "Antonio Goncalves"
> <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com <mailto:antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Four years ago, when we were building Java EE 6, we had this idea of
> a minimal profile that Roberto blogged about
> (http://weblogs.java.net/blog/robc/archive/2008/02/profiles_in_the.html).
> The idea was to standardise "Tomcat-like" application servers with a
> minimal profile containing Servlets and JSPs. So we would have had
> this "minimal" profile, the web profile and the full one. We mostly
> voted no on this minimal profile, and I was one of them.
>
> I've spent the week migrating a JSF 1.2 application running on
> Tomcat to JBoss 6 EAP (which comes with JSF 2.0). Now I'm trying to
> run an application with JAX-RS 2.0 running on GlassFish 3.x (which
> comes with JAX-RS 1.1). On both cases, it's hell. This would be
> easier if I could have used a JBoss 6 EAP Minimal Profile (or a
> GlassFish 3.x Minimal Profile) and bundle my own external jars like
> I do with Tomcat. If we want applications to migrate to Java EE
> application servers, one ease of use would be to have just a servlet
> container. And it will give a nice migration plan to application :
> e.g. "migrate from Tomcat to JBoss Minimal profile, and then when
> you are used to your new application server, move to a Web Profile
> and start adding other Java EE modules".
>
> I think having a new "Minimal Profile" (a better name would be a
> "Servlet Profile" with just Servlets, EL and JSP) would increase
> modularity in application servers and help applications to migrate
> to Java EE.
>
> What would you think of introducing a new profile in Java EE 7 ?
>
> Antonio
>
--
Jason T. Greene
JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat